It is interesting to observe that people who believe the official Apollo story behave like fundamentalists with a religious faith: they argue dictatorially and use the expression “conspiracy theory” as if conspiracies were something exceptional.

What else are they to do Andrew? In the case of Apollo, the fraud perpetrators' only recourse is to prop up their feeble position by way of the woefully anemic validation that ony empty authority can so provide.

GraemeBird, I really don't care about your conspiracy theories and whatever claims about 'scientific' facts you make. You can believe whatever you want, for all I care. Please take your comments elsewhere, I'm sure there's plenty of websites where you find like minded people.

They are not theories. They are verifiable facts and no line-ball call. It ought not be a debatable matter. Its not a matter of opinion. Its just too bad for you that you are part of the modern contempt for evidence and the need to respect evidence.

The only "evidence" for a hoax that you've mentioned is photographic. Here is a website that shows how all the claimed "anomalies" in the Apollo record are simple photographic effects that anyone can reproduce for themselves:http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

These are merely ad-hoc excuses to stall people long enough for the fluoride fog to settle back in. The photographic evidence cannot be dismissed as photos are a lot of the raw data of the hoax that we have. So its photographic analysis that matters, and the other side shy away from it. But its not only photographic analysis.

It was impossible to go to the moon because of the Van Allen belts. Unless you at first set up construction in low earth orbit, or alternatively develop post-rocketry technology, you cannot have the shielding necessary to take humans to the moon. They could not go so they did not go. So Chinese people won't be going to the moon anytime soon. All commercial plans for going to the moon will fail in upcoming years too. They won't be going there without Van Alllen belt shielding and more serious heat control methods. All of which requires construction in low earth orbit and/or post-hydrocarbon propulsion.

So I point you to a rebuttal of your photo claims and you change the subject and the I'm one who's "shying away"?

As to the Van Allen belts, are you aware that hundreds of organisations operate satellites within the belts and are well aware of the radiation levels? Can you name one of these organisations who agree with you?

Rebuttal? Thats an evidence-free-site. There is no evidence they went to the moon on that site. Not so much as the attempt at such evidence. Here we have the null-hypothesis and the burden of proof at work. Under this wrong epistemology the proponents of really idiotic ideas reckon they need no evidence. Has this fellow made the Van Allen belts go away? Has he solved the mystery of no exhalation of CO2 from the space-suits? Of how they redistributed extremes of heat and cold? No he hasn't even corrected the record on photography. He's just affected to pretend that if he goes to extremes he can sometimes reproduce some of the anomalies. But the fake moon-walkers weren't actually attempting to CREATE anomalies. They were rather trying to avoid them and failed.

You've fallen for this faux-Popperian nonsense, and in this fantasy-epistemology you don't think you need evidence for your wrong ideas. That fellow has no evidence. He hasn't disproved any anomalies. He's got nothing.

While falsification has a small role, its evidence that you need for competing hypotheses. You've got to progress from the null-hypothesis doctrine. The null hypothesis is a good way to allow public servants to never achieve anything. But its useless for scientific pursuit. As I told you, and I think you now agree, he has not a single stitch of evidence that they went to the moon under Apollo. So the site is worthless.

The author of that website isn't proving Apollo, he's disproving hoax claims. You are the one claiming anomalies in the Apollo photographic record. If these so-called anomalies are shown to be quite normal photographic effects, as that website indeed shows, then you are the one left with nothing.

The author hasn't even disproven ONE hoax claims. The shadows still ought not be non-parallel, and the studio lights ought not be placeable by photographic analysis. As you say he has not even a tiny bit of evidence that could favour Apollo. He's got nothing to make the Van Allen belt go away, to make the Lunar module a credible flying machine, to make the space-suits (with no exhalation) functioning to enable the astroNOTS to deal with heat and cold, and so forth.

Lets make it very clear: There is no third party evidence for Apollo. Your wiki links claim that anything it mentions is evidence is a ridiculous lie. The LRO is not third party and its not evidence. The Japanese pictures are specifically without remnant Apollo equipment. The equipment is notable in its absence. You could make them evidence for the other side.

If NASA wants to place bogus equipment on the moon at some future date to cover its tracks it can no doubt do so. But without post-rocket technology its not getting a man there and back.

I was a geologist and my group, like hundreds of others around the world, has studied moon rocks. In thousands of publications, there isn't a single one that doubts where the rocks provided by NASA originated from.
Then, I read that these moon rocks originate from the Antarctic. I actually went and studied these areas (Blue ice areas) for my Ph.D. (on a subject totally unrelated to the rocks). Indeed, moon rocks have been found there, however: 1) they are very rare (I've never found one there) and 2) Not until 1979 - seven years AFTER the last landing - were these properly identified as originating from the moon. FACT #2.

I'm sure none of the above matters to deniers, but I just wanted to demonstrate that when physical evidence (rocks samples) is concerned, your argument about 'verifiable facts' is just hand-waving. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Now you are just being silly. They tried to pass off petrified wood as moon rock. No evidence exists that any of that first haul came from the moon, though one doesn't want to be dogmatic about what they've managed to retrieve since then.

I note you completely ignore the evidence from that link that you can't somehow handwave away, like the geologists from all over the world who have examined the returned samples. Radio amateurs recorded the missions, astronomers tracked them, an Australian communications engineer had a two-way conversation with an Apollo crew.

If the hoax proponents, with complete ignorance of perspective, say that shadows should be parallel, and anyone can take photos in sunlight on Earth with non-parallel shadows, then the hoax claim is manifestly false.

Just to remind you, you have yet to produce a shred of evidence on the radiation levels in the Van Allen belts, the LM flies in much the same way as any launch vehicle upper stage and the same spacesuit technology works perfectly well in the vacuum and similar thermal conditions of Earth orbit.

For any one who isn't aware of this incident, the object was given to the Dutch prime minister during the visit by the Apollo 11 crew. That soon after the mission, no samples had been distributed. Unlike later and very much smaller moon samples given as commemorative gifts to other nations, its caption does not say that it is moon rock. The only people who confused petrified wood and moon rocks were at a Dutch art museum who inherited the object when the recipient died.

"If the hoax proponents, with complete ignorance of perspective..."
There are no non-parallel shadows on the website you linked. On top of that you just admitted that on the site you linked its a case of perspective. Using tall trees and power-lines and such, which tower above the camera. But no expert will look at those photos and conclude that the shadows aren't parallel. No expert is going to look at that photo's and be able to place a secondary source of light.
Shadows from the sun are always parallel, because the light doesn't come millions of miles at c-speed straight, only to veer hither and yon in the final fraction of a nano-second.
I see you are not being serious with this tendentiousness. But the Apollo hoax is not anything to be flippant about. It was the greatest non-war ripoff in free world history, until Hank Paulson emerged to top it.

What rubbish. You don't insure rocks that you think come from the moon for huge amounts and then let them go missing. And you don't just hand a precious rock of this sort over to the dirty mitts of a politician or go-between. It was mounted on a plaque before being given as a gift.

"the LM flies in much the same way as any launch vehicle upper stage .."

That is just nonsense. Like any brick outhouse its going to start spinning whenever anyone attempts to fly it. No confirmed smooth flights inside the Van Allen belt. And of course the ones outside the belts were just cheap lies. NASA cannot even get this sort of thing right in 2012. The tin can had nothing to stabilise it. Going into a spin was its natural trajectory. You'd probably be better going to the old testament (wheels within wheels) for a better designed flying machine then what those thieves at NASA will give you:

You are being wilfully ignorant here. There are indeed examples of shadows appearing non-parallel due to perspective on that website, just as they do in the Apollo record, and if you go outside on a sunny day, you can see plenty for yourself.

The LM was tested successfully twice in low earth orbit, with a crew aboard in the case of Apollo 9.

The vehicle in your video is not the LM, it's a test for a new type of rocket. Other vehicles since the LM have demonstrated landing under rocket power, on the Earth, Moon and Mars. Few of them have been symmetrical. You are just being ignorant again if you think a vehicle has to look symmetric to be controllable.

Armstrong himself almost died in the low earth orbit test. He got the job done, and achieved docking. But it was a close-run thing. Where's video evidence of the tin can working well in low earth orbit? I'd like to see the LM tested successfully on earth. I thought it was too flimsy and would break apart on earth.

Two successful tests and you want to take it to the moon? So we are talking giving the pilot successful flying time measured in minutes? See the story lacks credibility. Pilots talking about hundreds of hours flying time .... Not a couple of times with a different pilot and then we are done and ready to roll to the far side of the moon? The entire thing is just silly.

How did these public servants react to the "real" moon rocks? By noting that one of them was petrified wood, but what did they have to compare with what it was they were being shown? Nothing to compare with, no systematic way to falsify, and who are these people we are talking about and what reasoning did one of them use to make the verification? Can we even name one of these guys and get him to account for his belief?

If you don't know what a moon rocks characteristics are you will go along with something being a moon rock, unless its petrified wood. That is to say unless its something that obviously couldn't have formed on the moon.

Its meteors we are talking about.

Rocks that land on the moon and sit there for a million years and get to be called moon rocks are simply small meteors that land on the moon. So how you would tell a small moon meteor that had been sitting on the moon for millions of years apart from meteors that fell to Antarctica .... well the geologist might know the difference but he'd have to be testing the difference with aggressive falsification in his heart. And he might not have a job any more if he started giving the alleged meteors the thumbs down.

Nothing that you find loose on the moons surface was formed within the moon as part of specific moon geological processes. Its just meteors we are talking about. Falsification would amount to comparing meteors with meteors.

Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance.
"Armstrong himself almost died in the low earth orbit test".
That was Gemini 8, completely different spacecraft. The LM was tested unmanned (Apollo 5), manned in low orbit (Apollo 9) and manned in lunar orbit (Apollo 10). All added up to the hundreds of hours you want, Google the videos for yourself.
"How did these public servants react to the "real" moon rocks?"
Now you are really being silly. Just go and ask a geologist if they would know a moon rock or not. They can tell how a rock formed, and low gravity, radiation exposure and vacuum are going have effects.

Make-believe all of it. You don't have the data. How many minutes of successful flight does this fantasy involve? As opposed to reality which would demand hours of successful flight before such an undertaking. And while your at it explain how in your fantasy Neil Armstrong became the greatest photographer who ever lived!!! With his fingers blown up so he couldn't feel the camera. With so little movement that he couldn't see the camera. No view-finder, the camera stuck to his chest. Where are all the out of focus and poor shots that he took during those two hours. As opposed to the studio creations that constitute the raw data of hoax.

You do love to display your ignorance, don't you? The unmanned Apollo 5 mission lasted a few hours, while the manned Apollo 9 and 10 flights totalled 18 days.

If you think the photographic record is perfect, you obviously haven't examined it. For instance, Armstrong's famous picture of Aldrin has the subject off centre, slightly cropped by the edge of the frame, while the very next frame is an out-of-focus close-up of his own spacesuit.

Have you ever taken a photo with a manual camera? You can pre-set exposure for known lighting conditions such as bright sunlight, while it is fairly easy to point the camera in roughly the right direction and take advantage of a wide-angle lens to get the subject in frame.

The camera was of course adapted to be used in a spacesuit, as were the similar cameras used for all the pictures taken on space-walks in low earth orbit.

You are a dishonest fool . "The unmanned Apollo 5 mission lasted a few hours" We were talking about the flight of that piece of crap lunar module. Not the entire Apollo five mission. You are an idiot mate.

And of course your comments on the still photos further emphasise what a moron you are. Get a brain transplant and a slut tumour removal before talking to me again. Have you no shame at the sheer stupidity of your comments?

In your favour I can say that you are not untypical of someone hanging onto irrational pro-Apollo beliefs in the face of all the data which contradicts them.

We are going to go over the non-parallel shadows again. This is a debunking of the Apollo mission in and of itself. Its NOT A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE. The question is are they parallel or not? They aren't. The suns shadows are parallel because there is one light source and it is far away. Studio light shadows are not parallel, since the source of the light is near, or there may be more than one studio light.

Its got nothing to do with illusion or perspective. Here is the quintessential example of the Apollo stooge accepting one ad hoc excuse after another. The ad hoc excuse-making process can go on as long as the stooges want to run interference for the criminals who ran away with the taxpayers money. The shadow gives the game away. This make-believe debunking cannot produce a time-machine and allow the astroNOTS to go back in time and make it to the moon when they never did.

The question of the shadows has not been addressed. Its not going away despite the goose-stepper you linked. The networks who pulled off this gigantic crime against the public are still at large. The criminal parasites have produced children who are parasitic off us and murderous towards us still. The crime of Apollo is such that the networks have been caught red-handed. Its important that this fact is part of the mainstream record. So that the heirs of the old criminals can have their wings clipped.

Artists have understood perspective for centuries, it's just hoax proponents who have problems understanding it. It's quite simple. Things like sunbeams that are parallel in three dimensional reality appear non-parallel in a two-dimensional representation of that reality, such as a picture or photo. All you are doing is claiming that sunbeams should be parallel in photos, when anyone can take a photo showing non-parallel beams.http://media.lonelyplanet.com/lpimg/27724/27724-89/preview.jpg

You appear to be basing your worldview on an ignorance of basic geometry. I would suggest that this is not a rational action.

Well, so if I follow that video, the logic seems to be that "Borman took a sleeping pill even though he expected it make him sick, indeed it did also the second, so conclusion is his sickness is all faked/feigned, in fact all of Apollo is fake"

Sorry Claudia, as I said right at the start, you can have your opinions and I'm fine with that, but really if that is the best proof you can come up with? Seriously?

This will be my last reply on this topic, as this thread has detoriated with the usual offensive language which, whatever you believe, is just totally disrespectful to the subject of this obituary. Goodbye.

The lunar module could barely fly at all. It was only meant to be a museum piece for the most part. Show me video of it flying on earth. I would like to see that. It would just go up and come down on its head, or go into a spin right away.

You still are remiss at not explaining the non-parallel shadows, and the lack of exhalation from the space-suits.

What a giveaway. So useless it doesn't even work on earth. And yet it was supposed to be able to lift off the moon and accelerate to 1.6 kilometres per second. But worse then that. Its supposed to be able to work on the moon without producing an orange flame or an opaque red gas.

Total debunking right there. Thats a smoking gun right there. The LM that doesn't smoke is one of many smoking guns against this particular public rip-off by the usual gangsters.

Maybe you have a sister who has everything. Or maybe she's rather certain about what she wears and uses on her body. Or she may be the practical type, with no time for fussing with her hair and make-up. Regardless of which kind she is, she's bound to appreciate a present within the heart, such as a glamorous and opulent burst of colour and design in the shape of the gorgeous hair flower. Here's some information on hair flowers that create remarkable http://giftsforsister.net in the UK.

Thank you for a wonderful article. I, too, was one of millions of wide-eyed youths on that incredible night in July, and I believe Neil Armstrong rightfully deserves his place in history. That said, though, what has space exploration ultimately taught us? The moon, and probably Mars as well, are dusty, rocky, lifeless bodies, inhospitable, and uninhabitable for mankind. Instead of wasting enormous resources to colonize these places which are clearly unsuitable for human life, we need to focus on preserving this life- laden sphere we inhabit, while sending unmanned probes to search for intelligent life that surely exists elsewhere.

With enough capital investment, space turns out to be very habitable, since there is unlimited electrical energy to be tapped up there. Its our investment markets that need to be seen to and regulated more carefully, upon which they can supply the investment resources to fix things down here and build things up up there.

The reason he was so reclusive was that he had to live a lie. Pretty simple. If your life is a lie its better to just shut up about it. Getting beyond the fakery of Apollo is important because it gives us a better understanding of the gangsterism involved in the elites of our society.

There are still those idiots out there who believe in "the fakery of Apollo" in spite of the many who witnessed the launches of these amazing machines. This person probably also believes the earth is still flat and we are at the center of the universe!

GraemeBird, you said "If your life is a lie its better to just shut up about it.". I'd reword that with a little extra detail.
If you, 'Graeme', lack the ability to understand the Apollo missions and (due to your own level of incompetence) believe others can't achieve greatness, it's better to NOT reveal that to the world.

Whether trolling or serious, shame on you for your abject ignorance, and your complete lack of respect.

Whereas you can sleep happily in the knowledge that you resort to dishonestly representing yourself as a host of qualified people who argue with each other on web forums?

Gives some support to the theory that people who believe in conspiracy theories are those whose personality type would lead them to act in the way they accuse others of doing, if they were in positions of power.

...and yet when I reply to a post from Claudia1000, it's GraemeBird that replies to me. It would be a trifle more convincing if you could keep all the identities straight. As you said "If your life is a lie its better to just shut up about it".

That is not at all what GraemeBird was saying. He was saying that if your life is a lie, it is much better to become transparently reinvigorated. In short, it is much better to become hypergolic. See the posts above for more.

He almost died two times trying to make that crap tin can lunar module work. But the second time he became the first person to manage the problem of docking two vehicles in space. That is a tough gig. Its difficult for the same reasons that young couples gave up on water-beds three decades ago.

I guess he could be called a great man for being the first in the modern era to pull of the problem of docking in space. And for the fact that he almost died at least two times achieving this milestone.

So I don't want to put him down too much. But we have to get over this idea that he walked on the moon. Because there is no chance he ever did that.

Repeating your ignorance simply shows your true colours, GraemeBird.
Apollo - happened as recorded.
You - clearly ignorant in the requisite fields and easily fooled. So I suggest you pick another hobby - Apollo denial is effectively OVER and is now the domain of the terminally moronic.
If you seriously believe it was a hoax, why aren't you at forums debating the topic, instead of showing your ignorance, immaturity and disrespect here?
Oh, wait... :D

There is no use getting emotional about it, The raw data can be analysed and it shows they did not go. The Vann Allen Belt was there before, during and after Apollo, and they could not make it go away. They didn't have the equipment to cope with the Vann Allen Belt. All of them would have died immediately.

To GraemeBird - this isn't about emotions, even though your claimed ability to read mine from a distance is, I'm sure, impressive to those equally gullible... As for your pitiful 'evidence' - it is evidence only of your complete ignorance.

First - it's spelled 'Van Allen'. Off to a *really* good start when you can't even spell it.
Second, that would be the same Van Allen belt that the ISS flies through on many orbits? Are those astronauts a hoax too?

Third, I (like NASA in 1969) happen to know both the amount and type of radiation that would be encountered in the trajectory chosen by the Apollo flight engineers. And that level was easily countered by simple use of appropriate shielding. Appropriate shielding ISN'T lead, by the way - do *you* know *why*? Do tell - show us your knowledge and post a few numbers. I know this isn't the place, but you clearly don't possess the guts to go to a forum - eg APOLLOHOAXdotnet.

Graeme, you are so out of your depth here, it's too late for lifeguards. What will be next - the fact they couldn't easily see stars in daylight? These arguments are moronic.

This is the sort of irrationality keeping the Apollo fraud in the air. The committed irrationalist thinks she can make the Van Allen belts go away, simply by spelling them correctly. But the Van Allen belts were there before, after, and during Apollo, and they are there still. Which is why rocketry hasn't seen humans go past around 400 miles in height without getting killed. The Apollo lie is to claim that one program and one program alone had humans going maybe 600 times further. Appropriate shielding need not be lead. Two metres of water might help if it could be kept cool. No easy trick. But two litres of water or any appropriate shielding means that we need appropriate construction in near earth orbit, hydrogen cannons to put most materials in near earth orbit .... or propulsion that hydrocarbon based systems are not capable of.

So, Graeme, you don't know the shape of the Van Allen belts - may I suggest you research the South Atlantic Anomaly and look at how stupid your comment about the 400 miles was..
You don't know what type of radiation it is (if you did you wouldn't have made the ignorant comment about lead v water - yes, that was a *trap* and you failed it wonderfully).

That hardly matters if you need to use the earths rotation to help you leave earth's gravity. The shape of the Van Allen belts is unfortunate in this regard. Where it counts the Van Allen belts start about 1000 miles away. But the radiation is so powerful no-one ever gets higher then 400 miles. They will die before they even get there.

The water needs to be cool or it will turn to steam and destroy the vehicle that had water shielding. I wasn't saying anything about radiation with that one. Cooling is a big problem in space. Its daytime all the time.

That hardly matters if you need to use the earths rotation to help you leave earth's gravity. The shape of the Van Allen belts is unfortunate in this regard. Where it counts the Van Allen belts start about 1000 miles away. But the radiation is so powerful no-one ever gets higher then 400 miles. They will die before they even get there.

The water needs to be cool or it will turn to steam and destroy the vehicle that had water shielding. I wasn't saying anything about radiation with that one. Cooling is a big problem in space. Its daytime all the time.

The flying bedstand accident from which Armstrong barely escaped with his life was obviously staged GraemeBird. It was a pretend "near miss" for obvious reasons.

I know it is difficult, but try to imagine yourself as Armstrong did, though technically a civilian, he was a soldier. He did go into this believing he was doing the right thing, the patriotic thing, the American thing. Of course it was crazy, but unless we can FORGIVE this transgression, we won't get the president or anyone to cop to the truth.

Apollo will "RESOLVE" when a president has the courage to finally say, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH".

The flying bedstand accident from which Armstrong barely escaped with his life was obviously staged GraemeBird. It was a pretend "near miss" for obvious reasons.

I know it is difficult, but try to imagine yourself as Armstrong did, though technically a civilian, he was a soldier. He did go into this believing he was doing the right thing, the patriotic thing, the American thing. Of course it was crazy, but unless we can FORGIVE this transgression, we won't get the president or anyone to cop to the truth.

Apollo will "RESOLVE" when a president has the courage to finally say, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH".

I just go with the evidence and I have seen no reason to cast aspersions on much of the near-earth stuff. Almost all of it seems to be valid. Somebody had to be first to achieve the docking move.

Blaming Armstrong for the con-job and covering it over with treacly appeals to his patriotism or the position he was in ..... this amounts to foisting the blame on Nixon, and letting the gangsters running things off the hook. The gangster network murdered Gus Grissom and a bunch of others (including female family members of people who opposed them) to show they meant business. Its the fear of being murdered and having their family murdered that is the only thing that could have kept Armstrong and the others quiet. Its nothing to do with being suckered in by their soldierly patriotism.

He did cash in. All those stories about Neil being a great "stock picker". What do you think that was about? And to be honest, I for one think he deserved it, a bit of insider trading as compensation for screaming himself to sleep at night.

1. The humanity is conquering the world and destroying the nature and the whole creation within his reach.
2. Only the cultural heritage, in wide sense of the word, created by the mankind, can be the only justification for this devastation of the creation.
3. It is our obligation to our self and to the future generation to preserve every cultural heritage and as much nature as it is possible. It seems that the aim to preserve the nature is lost case, unless the population grow will stop and the humans will give up their rush toward the total comfort (big cars, big televisions et.c.) but culture still can be preserved.

I think I rate how great a person was by how much I sob uncontrollably at the news of their passing: John Lennon, Peter Sellars, Jim Hensen, Douglas Adams, Princess Diana, Ray Bradbury, et. al. An eclectic mix, I will admit, but Mr. Armstrong was definitely a seven-kleenex cry.

Watching the moon landing was one of the few things in my life that made the hair on the back of my head stand up with the feeling that this event was truly momentous for all humanity.EVERYBODY who had a telly watched it.Armstrong is truly one of America's finest,a hero to emulate and praise as long as we have history.